As I’ve been reading the arguments around violent video games and acts of violence, I am continually impressed with the poor quality of reasoning that I was reading. For example, in the first myth which Henry Jenkins debunks, he referred to a report by the U.S. Surgeon General that said the quality of one’s home life and one’s mental stability were the strongest risk factors with connection to school shootings. That almost seems like common sense. I wonder how they measure the quality of one’s home life and one’s mental stability. I wonder how they’d measure mine.
Following this line of logic, we might say that if a child comes from a quality home and is mentally stable, then he or she is not going to play violent video games because they’re not attractive to the child. If somehow, by chance, they were; then the parents wouldn’t allow it. They wouldn’t allow it because they know what is going on in the child’s life and they monitor what experiences the child has.
In contrast, a child who comes from an unstable home is more likely to play video games because his or her parents aren’t involved enough in the child’s life and the child is probably doing all kinds of things which are beyond the parents knowledge. So could we then say that if a child is playing violent video games, they come from an unstable home where the parents obviously either don’t know or care enough to monitor their children’s video games or they don’t know what their child is doing? Looks to me like we could. If that’s the case, then the Surgeon General’s report looks like an example of circular reasoning. If you see this line of reasoning differently, please let me know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I am not positive about this, but considering how popular violent video games are I don't think it can be said that children in stable homes don't play violent games and children in unstable homes do. It would be like saying children in unstable homes listen to rap music with explicit lyrics and children in stable homes do not; rap is so popular and ubiquitous that such a generalization seems strained to me. It's hard to say, though, since no one is tracking who the millions of people that buy or play these games are.
One of the articles I read recently said that when it comes to youth who play violent video games, the difference between the ones who are aggressive and the ones who aren't lies in the overall nature of that young person's interest in violence. Are they fundamentally interested in the concept of hurting others? That's where the vague but overarching idea of measuring "the quality of one's home life" comes into play. It sounds like one would have to go through tons of detailed case studies to be able to judge such a thing, but I think it can be possible to do. But you're right, it's quite subjective.
Clara, thanks for that clarification. It looks like I was reading too much into the Surgeon General's report. Obvious to me now that you point it out. I wonder why I didn't see that before. I've also read something like the idea you read.
"when it comes to youth who play violent video games, the difference between the ones who are aggressive and the ones who aren't lies in the overall nature of that young person's interest in violence. Are they fundamentally interested in the concept of hurting others?"
I think that would be an interesting and productive study. After reading your post, I can also see how it doesn't necessarily need to be circular reasoning.
Becky
Becky
I would definitely agree with Klara; I know many teens from jr. high to college age who play violent video games and are in what I would call stable homes. Circular reasoning and causation/ correlation questions are definitely important to consider, though: are the violent games causing active violence, or are more aggressive people are seeking violent entertainment?
I found it interesting and frustrating that the research seems to be so confusing, or can be interpreted so differently. It seems that whatever your position in this debate, there is a study - or studies - to support it. I thought the article by Karen Sternheimer raised some great points about the biases in reporting the results, including that news reports don't take into consideration the broader social influences on violence, including poverty, guns, home situations and much more. Also, think of all the things people see in movies or do in video games (leap from building to building for example) that they don't actually try to do.
I also found some of the articles about kids and Video violence a little bit frustrating and. The article that I agreed with the most was 12th Annual Media Wise Video Game Report. It’s recommendations that parents learn to understand ratings and taking responsibility for their kids and time spent playing violent games. The point of the report concluded that the evidence is still not completely in regarding the long term effects of video violence and that it is prudent to limit excessive playing at inappropriate levels.
What I found frustrating and very black and white was the “Do Video Games Kill” article. The continual assumption was that our culture thinks that video games cause otherwise normal middle class kids to become violent. I found this argument to be too extreme and too literal. I don’t think that is what most people think at all. Defenders of violent games in the article say that studies barely mention factors such as depression or poor quality home lives that actually cause kids to react violently. I do think that these are the kids that our society fears may be influenced by violent video game experiences among other new elements in our world today.
The incidence of depressed children is increasing. According to
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/d/depression/prevalence.htm Wrong Diagnosis
“A number of .. studies have reported that up to 2.5 percent of children and up to 8.3 percent of adolescents in the U.S. suffer from depression4 An NIMH-sponsored study of 9- to 17-year-olds estimates that the prevalence of any depression is more than 6 percent in a 6-month period, with 4.9 percent having major depression.5 In addition, research indicates that depression onset is occurring earlier in life today than in past decades.6 A recently published longitudinal prospective study found that early-onset depression often persists, recurs, and continues into adulthood,…”
In addition there are more parents absent from home for large parts of the day, and there are more children that learn what their life experiences and reactions should be from what they see on television and movies. We have discussed in this class what kids think is realistic on TV and we know that their view of life is skewed by what is represented on mass television. There is more pressure to fit in, look a certain way and act a certain way more than ever before.
Regarding inappropriate VIOLENT video games, I do believe it fosters in troubled individuals a confidence and confusion between that which is virtual and that which is real. It is not just video violence that affects this type but also violent television, movies and even the internet. In my opinion, these kids are extremely impressionable and looking for ways to blame and get even with the world. The internet is just as much a companion to evil in this case as these types of individuals will seek out bomb recipes and create mass murder plans with some other loner half way across the world.
While I don’t think that playing videos causes violence in children, I think that the results for long term effects on personalities, reactions, and dealing with frustrations is not in yet. Children playing violent games with realistic horror imagery and extensively is probably newer than many in this class have experienced.
Today’s children have access to more games at mature levels at younger ages, for longer time periods and with newer equipment that allows for more visually realistic action and interaction. I think there is cause for concern for children at an impressionable age that have continual access to these games. I agree that children need limits and that ratings are appropriate.
I do not think that playing video games that are violent at the levels I mention above are in any way comparable to creepy characters and plot lines in comic books, books, or music. Video games are interactive, and I agree that the imagery in games and in Television can become an insidious desensitizer.
I have read novels that are dark and depressing and when I read these, I feel the paranoia and loathing that the character feels. A good example of this is Dostoeysky’s “:Crime and Punishment”. During the reading of this novel I felt anti-social and paranoid . I was totally involved with the character and events.
Couldn’t it be possible that if were fed a diet of life like interactive experiences where all of my reactions are fast and violent reappear say in road rage or whatever?
I remember a few years ago, taking kids to a video arcade. There was a teen there dressed in a black raincoat (Columbine style) playing the shooting games. It was quite creepy and I would say this individual was disturbed. He was disturbed most likely before ever playing video games and he obviously emulated the Colorado killers. I think that virtual games can give someone with such personality disorder courage to create a violent reality. Virtual worlds sometimes cross over into real life. In addition to violent gaming, television news events can also bolster the courage of disturbed persons to act in real life.
It was mentioned that not all players of Dungeons and Dragons are killers, however, most would agree that the profile of a mass murder shooter is a loner type that finds some sort of satisfaction and control with such games.
In conclusion, Im not against video games, or even violent ones if that is your taste, but I truly believe that parents need to be paying attention to their children and their development, their obsessions, and their friends.
I just want to add a couple thhings:
1. Dungeons and Dragons is a social activity and cannot be played by loners anymore than loners can play poker or beach volleyball by themselves. I know this sounds nitpicky but I think it's important. Activities like video games and DnD are often perceived as attracting the "loner type" but more so than ever this is proving to be a stereotype. All stereotypes come from somewhere, but that doesn't make them 100% true. A lot of games these days are social and people go over to each other's houses or dorm rooms to play games with each other -- whether it's Dungeons and Dragons or Halo 3.
2. Cynthia, I'm just curious: Did the kid from the arcade do anything particularly creepy or was it just the combination of the coat and the gun games? Long black coats became popular before Columbine thanks to movies like "The Matrix" that make long black coats seem cool. The Columbine killers wore them and called themselves the Trenchcoat Mafia, but so did my old debate team friends. They were model students, but they were still concerned that others would view them as potential school shooters.
3. I dug up a link to the "Top 10 Emotions Felt While Videogaming" list that was created from the results of a little over a thousand gamers. It's not super-scientific but I think it touches upon why people play any game, video game or not, violent or not: to have fun and to discover something.
(deleted and edited to fix grammar and crap)
I have to second everything Klara just said.
Also, I think I'm unclear on something; when you say he emulated the Columbine boys, do you mean he was writing a hit list against his peers at school, building pipe bombs in his bedroom, and hoarding guns? Or do you just mean he was wearing a black coat? Because by that same logic, you could say that a charismatic college aged guy dressed in preppy clothes is emulating Ted Bundy. There's much more to people like that than fashion sense and to bring it down to one physical characteristic really devalues their mental state and actions.
"It was mentioned that not all players of Dungeons and Dragons are killers, however, most would agree that the profile of a mass murder shooter is a loner type that finds some sort of satisfaction and control with such games."
You seem to view D&D and tabletop gaming as a venue to gain control over others and as a possible step towards antisocial/homicidal behavior.
Would you think the same thing about a young person who enjoyed writing plays in their spare time?
Consider:
A Dungeon Master or Game Master composes a situation in which other players interact, respond, and solve problems using their own wit, skill, intellect, and logic as a team.
A playwright composes a situation in which actors play characters who solve problems using a script preset by the playwright him/herself.
The DM/GM composes scenarios almost exclusively to be put into use in a gaming session with their peers.
Playwrights' work often goes unpublished, unread, and unperformed.
So between the young dramatist and the young gamer, if you look only at what they produce, it would appear that:
-the playwright has more of a propensity to be a loner (since the GM is more likely to be creating for a social situation in which their scenes are put into use by peers) and
-the playwright is in a stronger position of control over others, since he completely controls and creates all the characters his scenarios deals with (and the GM's characters have as much free will and opportunity to respond as individuals as the players who create them)
It's always really bothered me that people associate D&D tabletop gamers with stereotypes that are at best antisocial, physically unhealthy nerds and at worst kill-crazy psychopaths. This is a really unhealthy stance to take considering how many young people use tabletop gaming as a creative catharsis.
From my mom's cousin a few decades ago to some friends in high school, I know several people whose parents took issue with D&D and not only refused to let their children play, but took all the D&D stuff they owned (sourcebooks they'd bought, all the miniatures they'd painted by hand, all the maps they'd drawn, the scenarios they'd written, the past games they'd written about and archived) and destroyed them. That had a much worse effect on them than the gaming ever would.
Post a Comment